Would it be a disaster for Lib Dems to get into power?

Bottle_of_Smoke

The world recession is still happening, even if some countries are out of it there's still very little growth, basically tough times ahead.

The chances are the UK isn't going to be in much better shape over the next 5 years.

If Lib Dems went into coalition now they could easily be made the scapegoats for continued job losses etc.

On the other hand if they don't get in they might stand a much better chance at getting a foothold for future votes so long as they have decent leaders when election 2015 comes around....

What do people think? No one would hate the greens/PDs if they hadn't gone in with Fianna Fail in the last few elections here, yet the outcome would have been much the same if Fianna Fail had of made up the numbers themselves.

who the fug

God no, because they will bring in PR which I never want to see in this country, when we are fed up we get rid not recycle


People hate the greens more because of who they went into power with, not the fact that they went into power

BlitzKrieg

God no, because they will bring in PR which I never want to see in this country

Yeah if PR (even in a diluted form) comes into the UK it will bring a shake up to the system that will be apparent long down the years (for good and bad) but for lib dems pushing for it now will always benefit them more then the tow larger parties because it will give them a much bigger leverage regardless if their popularity goes up or down in the coming years.

People hate the greens more because of who they went into power with, not the fact that they went into power

it was also such a turbulant coalition to even start with, the greens tore themselves apart over the issue of going into a FF coalition. I dont think as a party the libdems face the same dileama as the Greens did.


From an EU perspective, lib dems is a good thing/bad thing mix. Its good in that they are pro EU much more then the other two parties and maybe that might to start to rub off onto british public opinion.

its a bad thing because I actually do want to see Cameron on the spot with EU affairs and refusing an EU referendum, just to see him squirm and try to reason with years of british tabloid lies.

edit: btw I think I can vote in the election dont know if my register got in on time... its weird voting with the thinking *how does this benefit me as an immigrant and not a native...its weird*

mike65

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

edit: btw I think I can vote in the election dont know if my register got in on time... its weird voting with the thinking *how does this benefit me as an immigrant and not a native...its weird*

Bloody disgrace, send 'em home!

The Lib-Dems could have a choice - part of a coalition or supporting a minority government. Either way if now is their moment they had better take advantage of it and get PR pushed through, the Tories are in seduction mode today I see with Dave's team coming over all progressive while Clegg is making noises about the Tories. This backs up the view I heard put forward by Michael White who said Clegg has no time at all for Brown. Quite how the Tories are going to turn into advocates for PR beats me. The FPTP system has served them so well and PR will be a disaster for them in the long run.

My own reading is that a possible Lib/Tory deal is not on and Clegg is simply drawing out the increasingly anxious Anti-Brown elements in Labour. When the results are in Brown will be gone and a deal for a Lib/Lab government thrashed out.

BlitzKrieg

The FPTP system has served them so well and PR will be a disaster for them in the long run.

Yeah PR cant help tories in the same meagre way it will benefit labour. Labour can make deals with the Greens and Libdem alot easier then the tories can without damaging the core base and on the flipside the more conservative minor parties are not as...uhmm public relations friendly nor negotiable over key issues.

But give a few years of PR and I say you will see an increase of independents across the UK and perhaps the tories would benefit from a selection of independents supporting them.

mike65

Con/BNP/Ukip? Thats a government that never get elected.

sink

mike65 wrote: »

Con/BNP/Ukip? Thats a government that never get elected.

Nobody will ever share power with the BNP.

BlitzKrieg

sink wrote: »

Nobody will ever share power with the BNP.

what about ukip though?

They are a one note party but the tories have played with the EU issue and have so much infighting in the party itself over the EU that they could be pushed into a corner of linking up with ukip if british anti eu sentiments continue to grow.

sink

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

what about ukip though?

They are a one note party but the tories have played with the EU issue and have so much infighting in the party itself over the EU that they could be pushed into a corner of linking up with ukip if british anti eu sentiments continue to grow.

While it's a lot more possible than joining up with the BNP the Tories are too internally split over Europe to join with UKIP. There is still a minority of Tory members and supporters who are pro Europe and their continued support outweighs any possible support of UKIP. If they went into power with UKIP and lost the pro-EU Tories, it would be a net loss in support.

Bottle_of_Smoke

who the fug wrote: »

People hate the greens more because of who they went into power with, not the fact that they went into power

That's not quite what I meant. I don't think people even hated them for going into power with Fianna Fail. Its simply that regarding the economy bad things happened whilst the Greens were in power.

Now it would have happened anyway but because the greens were in power they're associated with it. If they were in opposition they'd barely be mentioned in the Dail.

If economic woe continues with Lib Dems in power they'll be associated with it for the short to at least medium term future, even if they don't cause the continued economic woe

BlitzKrieg

Its simply that regarding the economy bad things happened whilst the Greens were in power.

While I'll agree with you that its a big part of the damage done to Green's image among those who dont vote Green. I am thinking among people who normally support Green more damage was done by the split leading up to the coalition then the economic woes. That'll be more damaging to the greens in the long run.

Scuba Ste

who the fug wrote: »

God no, because they will bring in PR which I never want to see in this country, when we are fed up we get rid not recycle

Why would you support plurality over PR?

The plurality FPTP system hasnt seen a government elected with more than 50% of the popular vote in decades.

BroomBurner

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If economic woe continues with Lib Dems in power they'll be associated with it for the short to at least medium term future, even if they don't cause the continued economic woe

I don't think they will though. The LibDems manifesto spells their financing plans out quite well and clearly. They're also being very realistic and not lying to people, making promises they can't keep (Tory free-schools, anyone?).

If they enter as a partner with Labour, Clegg will need to take the PM role in order to hold the control. If they go in with the Tories, Cameron won't budge, and it could have a negative impact on them. However, I don't see this happening as the 4 key policy principles behind the LibDems are not that appealing to staunch Conservatives.

If they enter as a majority government, and continue with the level of transparency that they have upheld to date, then I don't see them having too many recriminations. They have so far found it quite easy to say "unfortunately we don't have the money for that right now" to people instead of lying.

Come on UK, do the right thing and vote for the LD's!

Off topic slightly, anyone else a bit disgusted at the Guardian's reporting of the Andrew Marr show?

mike65

Which article? So many its hard to keep up.

BroomBurner

mike65 wrote: »

Which article? So many its hard to keep up.

The scaremongering one by their political editor about how Clegg said he would go in to power with the Conservatives, when he had said no such thing.

I've two issues with it:
1. I know they're labour-leaning paper, but why open it up to readers to give their views on who to support and then totally ignore them and stick with pushing Labour?
2. I actually didn't think the Guardian would stoop to such dirty tactics, I'm quite ashamed of them.

sink

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/wales/8642853.stm

After reading this article, I think it would be a disaster if the Lib Dems get hold of power. Imagine politicians posing in staged photos with models :eek:, what is the world coming to! They have lost all credibility in my eyes. :rolleyes:

BroomBurner

They're stooping to such lows (the media and other parties), it'll only strengthen the LibDems! Well, I hope ;-)

Can you imagine if they had used an actual nurse/cop, there would have been a furore then aswell, only the questions would be directed at the NHS and police force member and it would be more uncomfortable.

IMO, I'd like to see a full LibDem government. Failing that, a Lab-Lib coalition with Clegg as PM, Cable as Chancellor, Milliband as FS. They should get rid of Brown and Balls from Labour.

A Dub in Glasgo

FPTP is undemocratic compared to PR.

Hopefully the LD will hold the balance of power in a hung parliament

danman

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Why would you support plurality over PR?

The plurality FPTP system hasnt seen a government elected with more than 50% of the popular vote in decades.

That's something I've wondered for years.

Why are the British so against PR?
Is it because FPTP is the system they've always had, so there's a fear of change?

Can anyone enlighten me?

BroomBurner

danman wrote: »

That's something I've wondered for years.

Why are the British so against PR?
Is it because FPTP is the system they've always had, so there's a fear of change?

Can anyone enlighten me?

I think the main parties are against it because it would mean that the chances of holding the largest majority independently of any other party would more than likely dry up. They don't like to share power.

They push this as creating an insecure government, one where there would be squabbling between the parties in a coalition. However, they never mention the myriad of countries where such coalitions exist as the norm, and manage it very well.

I don't think they've always had FPTP though, but I would need to check that out.

danman

So there is no idealogical reason, it's simply pushed by the big 2 for their own advantage?

It always seemed to me that the population were against PR for some other reason.
Perhaps the big 2 have achieved their aim.

BroomBurner

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/48811,news-comment,news-politics,pros-and-cons-proportional-representation-pr-first-past-the-post-electoral-reform-vote

Some good pros and cons for the PR system here.

mike65

FPTP is a stich up that suited Labour and the Torries equally well, so they reasoned why change it. Simples.

ChocolateSauce

A lib dem majority would be the best case scenario IMO, although I accept it's highly unlikely. I want to see a PR system in Britain because it would be a fair system, and a party with, say, 30% of the votes would get 30% of the seats. Furthermore, people who would vote for one particular party but don't, for fear of the wasted vote, would vote how they actually want to. It's a fair system, unlike FPTP.

It's a travesty that Labour could come third in votes but first in seats. Finally, if PR means the Torys never get in again, then that's just a further bonus.

who the fug

First past the post gives us the chance to kick the goverment out on its ass, PR only re arranges the deck chairs, that is why there is no real rush to get rid of it.

BlitzKrieg

Now people are confusing each other

First past the post gives us the chance to kick the goverment out on its ass, PR only re arranges the deck chairs

and under fptp

It's a travesty that Labour could come third in votes but first in seats.

steelcityblues

Can't believe this guy is a self-described 'libertarian' at times, when he produces arguments like this!


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100036508/the-case-against-coalitions-and-consensus/

Kiwi_knock

steelcityblues wrote: »

Can't believe this guy is a self-described 'libertarian' at times, when he produces arguments like this!


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100036508/the-case-against-coalitions-and-consensus/

Iinteresting read though I do not agree with any of it. I would hardly call his points arguments either, more like sweeping statements that had very little substance behind them. Its just scare mongering, and not even effective scare mongering at that. I can understand why the Conservaties fear PR, they more than Labour will be hit by the rise of the smaller parties.

BlitzKrieg

I find it confusing that the issues he has against PR are already existing in westminster without it.

steelcityblues

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Iinteresting read though I do not agree with any of it. I would hardly call his points arguments either, more like sweeping statements that had very little substance behind them. Its just scare mongering, and not even effective scare mongering at that. I can understand why the Conservaties fear PR, they more than Labour will be hit by the rise of the smaller parties.

Not to mention the possibility of UKIP or another, yet to be established party eating into their traditional vote.

A more urban, multicultural Britain definitely favours parties like Labour/ Lib Dems in the longrun more than Tories, as around half of the new constituencies could be made up of Gtr. London/Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds. Also, Glasgow, if Scotland are still part of the Union!

ChocolateSauce

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Now people are confusing each other




and under fptp

Both true. FPTP has its advantages, certainly, but in anything more than a 2 horse race it isn't the better option, IMO.